New Hampshire HB 1322: reestablishing the judicial conduct commission.

Bill Text

HB 1322-FN - AS INTRODUCED

2026 SESSION

 26-2982

 09/08

HOUSE BILL 1322-FN

AN ACT reestablishing the judicial conduct commission. 

SPONSORS: Rep. Sabourin dit Choiniere, Rock. 30; Rep. Bailey, Straf. 2; Rep. Burnham, Straf. 2; Rep. DeRoy, Straf. 3; Rep. D. Kelley, Hills. 32; Rep. Nalevanko, Ches. 9; Rep. Potenza, Straf. 19; Rep. Sirois, Hills. 32; Rep. Terry, Belk. 7

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

-----------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS

 This bill reestablishes the judicial conduct commission to investigate complaints against judges and clerks and make recommendations to the legislature regarding the exercise of the legislature's constitutional powers. The commission is designed to operate concurrently with the New Hampshire supreme court's disciplinary authority.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

 Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

 Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

 26-2982

 09/08

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Six

AN ACT reestablishing the judicial conduct commission. 

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

 1 Short Title. This act may be known and cited as the “Judicial Conduct Commission Act.”

 2 Findings. The general court hereby finds and declares that: 

 I. The right to a fair and impartial judiciary is fundamental to the administration of justice and essential to maintaining public confidence in our legal system, as recognized in part I, article 35 of the New Hampshire constitution.

 II. The legislature possesses constitutional authority under part II, articles 17 and 73 to remove judges through impeachment and address proceedings, but lacks an effective mechanism to investigate and evaluate complaints that may warrant such action.

 III. Members of the general court have received numerous complaints regarding judicial conduct through informal channels, creating an inconsistent and inefficient system for addressing legitimate concerns while lacking procedures to filter unfounded grievances.

 IV. The prior judicial conduct commission established under RSA 494-A, enacted in 2001, was intended to provide a structured process for investigating judicial misconduct and assisting the legislature in fulfilling its constitutional duties.

 V. The New Hampshire supreme court's decision in Petition of the Judicial Conduct Committee, 151 N.H. 123 (2004), found constitutional deficiencies in the prior statute's allocation of authority between the legislative and judicial branches, but did not invalidate the legislature's legitimate interest in establishing procedures to investigate potential grounds for impeachment or address.

 VI. The complete repeal of RSA 494-A in 2024, rather than its amendment to address constitutional concerns, has left the legislature without necessary procedural mechanisms to effectively exercise its constitutional responsibilities regarding judicial accountability.

 VII. Historical practice in New Hampshire demonstrates that judicial accountability to the people's representatives has deep roots in our constitutional tradition, including the general court's historical role in addressing petitions for redress of grievances.

 VIII. The separation of powers doctrine permits and indeed requires each branch to possess the tools necessary to fulfill its constitutional functions, including the legislature's need for investigative mechanisms to support its impeachment and address powers.

 IX. Public confidence in the judiciary requires both the independence necessary for impartial decision-making and appropriate accountability mechanisms to address misconduct that undermines the administration of justice.

 X. Therefore, the general court finds it necessary and proper to reestablish a judicial conduct commission that: 

 (a) Respects the constitutional boundaries between legislative and judicial authority; 

 (b) Provides a structured process for investigating complaints; 

 (c) Makes recommendations to assist the legislature in exercising its constitutional powers; 

 (d) Operates concurrently with, rather than in place of, the supreme court's inherent disciplinary authority; and 

 (e) Ensures transparency and public accountability while protecting the independence essential to judicial function.

 XI. This reestablishment represents a measured response to restore the balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability that is essential to our constitutional system of government.

 3 Judicial Conduct Commission. RSA 494-A is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

CHAPTER 494-A

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION

 494-A:1 Judicial Conduct Commission Established.